This is a fully coherent laser -- not just an X-ray source. So, you would not be scattering photons the way crystallography is done -- you would be taking holographic photos of the protein molecules. And yes, these are soft X-rays now -- but this is and brand new technique, and it appears to be very scaleable. Hard X-rays might not be too far off.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned this project yet: http://www.openpilot.org/ It seems to be a mature project with a strong community. I learned about it listening to my favorite podcast ~ a year ago: FLOSS Weekly, Episode 148;-)
According to this article, "Apple fully traced its supply chains for the four conflict minerals—tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold—which is further than other companies have gone."
I am currently the servant of an Orange Tabby cat. He's about as close to the cartoon Garfield as a real-life cat could be.
First -- it seems obvious to me that the genes that make humans red-headed are the same as the ones that make cats orange -- the color is virtually the same and they have freckles on their nose and lips that darken as they spend more time in the sun.
He is not a "scaredy-cat" like other cats. He only hides when he is the hunter. He regular stands up to dogs 5 times his size when they come onto his yard. This fearless seems to be normal for Orange cats -- anyone who has owned one will tell you the same.
I have also noticed that he seems to be virtually immune to pain. When he was young, he learned that he should never turn his back on a dog -- because his tail got bitten;) It should have been a painful wound, but he never got very upset about it when the vet and I cleaned and dressed it. I never deliberately hurt him -- but accidents happen -- and he never seems to be hurt.
I have always suspected that his fearlessness might be the result of reduced sensation of pain.
This might also explain the reputation for bravery that Lions have -- they are orange cats too !
Its probably got lots of other great uses, but the one I think of most is that its strong enough to make cables for a space elevator. That alone would be revolutionary.
I'm a former professional "software tester from hell" (currently unemployed) -- and I drive a 2007 Camry Hybrid. Officially, my car does not have a problem -- other than the floor mats -- which are now in my trunk and were never a real problem anyways. Months before all of this publicity, I complained to my dealer about what seemed like a "sticky throttle" during routine maintenance. The engine continues to run fast for 3-5 seconds after letting up on the gas. The dealer actually charged me for the extra inspection, but did not find a problem.
So obviously -- I have some concerns. I doubt that it is a software bug. It didn't start happening until the car was 2 years old. But who knows ? Some of those embedded computers have probably been running since the day the Hybrid battery pack was connected in the factory. Any software running that long could have become unstable.
But without source code, I am powerless to do anything about it. I have to rely on the word of Toyota's software QA people -- even though I know the current state of the art of software testing is a JOKE !
If Toyota open sourced the code -- I'd have a lot more confidence -- that with a lot more eyes on it -- the software really was OK. (and if they offered a reward for finding a problem -- I'd be even more confident)
Now for a quick rant as to WHY the current state of software testing is a joke, and why I have little confidence in ANY corporate software QA. I write this as a former CSTE -- the QAI's "Certified Software Test (Engineer/Expert)". I also should say that I love software testing because it is the one part of software development where creativity and intuition still play significant role. And -- it is one area where techniques and standards are still being developed at a significant pace.
Most software development today is 98% boilerplate and copies of stuff somebody else did. Engineers translate functional specifications into code based on established design patterns. There are some basic calculations to ensure good response times and scalability.
Software testers typically create test plans from the same set of functional specs that the engineers use. They simply validate that everything that is supposed to happen, happens. Then they might run some performance tests -- but only if management budgeted for a test environment for suitable for performance testing.
Then they stop.
Inevitably -- bugs appear in areas that no one ever expected. Those are fixed later -- and regression tests are added to the test plan.
But -- almost NO ONE EVER LOOKS FOR THOSE "UNEXPECTED" BUGS -- before software is put into production.
Why ? Because engineers hate the unexpected and don't typically know how to deal with it. Micro-managed companies following strict Six Sigma processes (like Toyota) don't know how to create a time and resource budget for a "hunt for the unexpected".
The QAI (Quality Assurance Institute) doesn't help either. They are run by a bunch of engineers obsessed with a desire to precisely measure and quantify every aspect of software testing. Their techniques are useful, and largely valid -- but if they don't know HOW to quantify something -- they IGNORE it.
Just ask any CSTE -- "How do you test for race conditions" ? There is no established technique for this, so the QAI simply IGNORES the issue. There is no mention of race conditions in the CSTE's CBOK (Certified Body of Knowledge). I used to work for one the the world's top software QA "gurus" and I once asked him how we test for race conditions -- the answer was -- "we don't, because we don't know how to do it".
Despite this -- intermittent race condition bugs account for a huge portion of real-world bugs ! As programmers make more use of multi-core CPUs and GPUS -- race condition bugs are getting to be more and more common.
And yet -- testing for race conditions and testing for "the unexpected" IS actually possible -- it just
The US Treasury Department's "TARP" economic recovery plan revolves around pricing and buying these so-called "toxic" assets. Presumably they need to create a market for them in order to price them. There can't be a market if no one knows how to price them. Hence -- JPMorgan releases their "super-secret" code.
It would be interesting to compare JPMorgan's price model to Quantlib. (http://quantlib.org).
I suspect that JPMorgan would be trying to inflate the price that they get for their CDSs !
There are several really high quality open-source ERP systems that have been getting some real traction in the press lately. OpenERP (http://openerp.com) and some of its derivatives come to mind.
ERP vendors rake in $Billions.
Their technology is old and clunky and their customers are almost universally unhappy.
Until now, their customers have been captives to proprietary licenses, FUD, tradition, and even some bribery.
Now, with the economy in free-fall, no one can afford to waste money on this ridiculously over-priced trash software.
With open-source becoming the "cool buzz-word" and with more open-source friendly IT talent out there, I think we might see more companies take advantage of slow-times to restructure based on open-source software.
ERP vendors know that they will eventually face this battle.
I see these gag orders by the vendors are a preemptive move in this war.
They want to be able to be able to spread FUD about open-source, but they first need to suppress the REAL disaster stories that involve their own software;-)
Slashdot Mirror
This is a fully coherent laser -- not just an X-ray source. So, you would not be scattering photons the way crystallography is done -- you would be taking holographic photos of the protein molecules.
And yes, these are soft X-rays now -- but this is and brand new technique, and it appears to be very scaleable. Hard X-rays might not be too far off.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned this project yet: http://www.openpilot.org/ It seems to be a mature project with a strong community. I learned about it listening to my favorite podcast ~ a year ago: FLOSS Weekly, Episode 148 ;-)
According to this article, "Apple fully traced its supply chains for the four conflict minerals—tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold—which is further than other companies have gone."
http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/blog/post/new-report-apple-strong-supply-chain-tracing-weak-certification
I am currently the servant of an Orange Tabby cat. He's about as close to the cartoon Garfield as a real-life cat could be.
First -- it seems obvious to me that the genes that make humans red-headed are the same as the ones that make cats orange -- the color is virtually the same and they have freckles on their nose and lips that darken as they spend more time in the sun.
He is not a "scaredy-cat" like other cats. He only hides when he is the hunter. He regular stands up to dogs 5 times his size when they come onto his yard.
This fearless seems to be normal for Orange cats -- anyone who has owned one will tell you the same.
I have also noticed that he seems to be virtually immune to pain. ;)
When he was young, he learned that he should never turn his back on a dog -- because his tail got bitten
It should have been a painful wound, but he never got very upset about it when the vet and I cleaned and dressed it.
I never deliberately hurt him -- but accidents happen -- and he never seems to be hurt.
I have always suspected that his fearlessness might be the result of reduced sensation of pain.
This might also explain the reputation for bravery that Lions have -- they are orange cats too !
Its probably got lots of other great uses, but the one I think of most is that its strong enough to make cables for a space elevator. That alone would be revolutionary.
I doubt that a nuke would work at a depth of 5000 ft.
There were underwater tests in the South Pacific in the 50's -- but at depths of around 90 ft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Proving_Grounds
I'm a former professional "software tester from hell" (currently unemployed) -- and I drive a 2007 Camry Hybrid.
Officially, my car does not have a problem -- other than the floor mats -- which are now in my trunk and were never a real problem anyways.
Months before all of this publicity, I complained to my dealer about what seemed like a "sticky throttle" during routine maintenance.
The engine continues to run fast for 3-5 seconds after letting up on the gas.
The dealer actually charged me for the extra inspection, but did not find a problem.
So obviously -- I have some concerns.
I doubt that it is a software bug. It didn't start happening until the car was 2 years old.
But who knows ?
Some of those embedded computers have probably been running since the day the Hybrid battery pack was connected in the factory.
Any software running that long could have become unstable.
But without source code, I am powerless to do anything about it.
I have to rely on the word of Toyota's software QA people -- even though I know the current state of the art of software testing is a JOKE !
If Toyota open sourced the code -- I'd have a lot more confidence -- that with a lot more eyes on it -- the software really was OK.
(and if they offered a reward for finding a problem -- I'd be even more confident)
Now for a quick rant as to WHY the current state of software testing is a joke, and why I have little confidence in ANY corporate software QA.
I write this as a former CSTE -- the QAI's "Certified Software Test (Engineer/Expert)".
I also should say that I love software testing because it is the one part of software development where creativity and intuition still play significant role.
And -- it is one area where techniques and standards are still being developed at a significant pace.
Most software development today is 98% boilerplate and copies of stuff somebody else did.
Engineers translate functional specifications into code based on established design patterns.
There are some basic calculations to ensure good response times and scalability.
Software testers typically create test plans from the same set of functional specs that the engineers use.
They simply validate that everything that is supposed to happen, happens.
Then they might run some performance tests -- but only if management budgeted for a test environment for suitable for performance testing.
Then they stop.
Inevitably -- bugs appear in areas that no one ever expected.
Those are fixed later -- and regression tests are added to the test plan.
But -- almost NO ONE EVER LOOKS FOR THOSE "UNEXPECTED" BUGS -- before software is put into production.
Why ?
Because engineers hate the unexpected and don't typically know how to deal with it.
Micro-managed companies following strict Six Sigma processes (like Toyota) don't know how to create a time and resource budget for a "hunt for the unexpected".
The QAI (Quality Assurance Institute) doesn't help either.
They are run by a bunch of engineers obsessed with a desire to precisely measure and quantify every aspect of software testing.
Their techniques are useful, and largely valid -- but if they don't know HOW to quantify something -- they IGNORE it.
Just ask any CSTE -- "How do you test for race conditions" ?
There is no established technique for this, so the QAI simply IGNORES the issue.
There is no mention of race conditions in the CSTE's CBOK (Certified Body of Knowledge).
I used to work for one the the world's top software QA "gurus" and I once asked him how we test for race conditions -- the answer was --
"we don't, because we don't know how to do it".
Despite this -- intermittent race condition bugs account for a huge portion of real-world bugs !
As programmers make more use of multi-core CPUs and GPUS -- race condition bugs are getting to be more and more common.
And yet -- testing for race conditions and testing for "the unexpected" IS actually possible -- it just
Already done: "tabletop soft X-ray source â- wavelengths: 13 to 47 nm â- highly coherent light". Available at: http://www.kmlabs.com/
The US Treasury Department's "TARP" economic recovery plan revolves around pricing and buying these so-called "toxic" assets. Presumably they need to create a market for them in order to price them. There can't be a market if no one knows how to price them. Hence -- JPMorgan releases their "super-secret" code. It would be interesting to compare JPMorgan's price model to Quantlib. (http://quantlib.org). I suspect that JPMorgan would be trying to inflate the price that they get for their CDSs !
There are several really high quality open-source ERP systems that have been getting some real traction in the press lately. OpenERP (http://openerp.com) and some of its derivatives come to mind. ERP vendors rake in $Billions. Their technology is old and clunky and their customers are almost universally unhappy. Until now, their customers have been captives to proprietary licenses, FUD, tradition, and even some bribery. Now, with the economy in free-fall, no one can afford to waste money on this ridiculously over-priced trash software. With open-source becoming the "cool buzz-word" and with more open-source friendly IT talent out there, I think we might see more companies take advantage of slow-times to restructure based on open-source software. ERP vendors know that they will eventually face this battle. I see these gag orders by the vendors are a preemptive move in this war. They want to be able to be able to spread FUD about open-source, but they first need to suppress the REAL disaster stories that involve their own software ;-)